Seventhly, That all the advertisement the lady received from time to time, from the lieutenant, or Weston, touching Overbury's state of body and health, were ever sent nigh to the court, though it were in progress, and that from my lady, such a thirst and listening he had to hear that he was dispatched.

Lastly, That there was a continual negotiation to set Overbury's head on work, that he should undertake to clear the honour of the lady, and that he should be a good instrument towards her, and her friends; all which was but entertainment: For your lordships shall see divers of my Lord of Northampton's letters, whose hand was deep in this business, written, I must say, in dark words and clauses; that there was one thing pretended, and another thing intended. That there was a real charge, and somewhat not real; a main drift and dissimulation: Nay, further, there are some passages, which the peers, in their wisdoms, will discern, to point directly at the impoisonment.

THE

REBELS CATECHISM:

Composed in an easy and familiar way, to let them see the heinousness of their offence, the weakness of their strongest subterfuges, and to recall them to their duties both to God and man.

Whosoever resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God; and they that resist, shall receive to themselves damnation. Rom. xiii. 2.

Printed 1643. Quarto, containing twenty-two pages.

To the Christian Reader.

Reader, thou must not look for all things new, in a point so agitated, so thoroughly discussed and canvassed as this hath been. It is well if they who come behind both in time, and knowledge, add any thing, though it be but little, unto those before them. All, I shall promise thee in this short discourse, is, that I have contracted, into a narrow compass, what I found scattered and diffused in many, and those larger tracts; which I have offered to thy view in a more easy and familiar way than hath been formerly presented. And something thou shalt meet with here, which thou hast not found in any other discourses of this argument, besides the fashion and the dress. These are the most prevailing motives I can lay before thee, to tempt thee

to the studying of this catechism; which, if it shall confirm thee in thy duty unto God and the King, or reclaim thee from thy disaffection unto either of them, it is all I aim at; and so fare thee well.

January 25, -1643.

UESTION. Who was the first author of rebellion ?

QUESTIO

A. The first author of rebellion, the root of all vices, and the mother of all mischief (saith the book of Homilies) was Lucifer, first, God's most excellent creature, and most bounden subject, who, by rebelling against the majesty of God, of the brightest and most glorious angel, became the blackest and foulest fiend and devil; and, from the height of heaven, is fallen into the pit and bottom of hell.

2. Q. How many sorts of rebellion are there?

A. Three most especially; that is to say, the rebellion of the heart, the rebellion of the tongue, and the rebellion of the hand.

3. Q. What is the rebellion of the heart?

A. The rebellion of the heart is a rancorous swelling of the heart, against the authority and commands of the supreme power under which we live: Which, though it be so cunningly suppressed and smothered, that it break not out either into words or deeds, yet makes a man guilty of damnation, in the sight of God. And this is that of which the Wiseman tells us, saying, Curse not the King, no, not in thy thought; for a bird of the air shall carry the voice, and that which hath wings shall tell the matter. Eccles. x. ver. 20.

4. Q. What is the rebellion of the tongue ?

A. The rebellion of the tongue is a malicious defaming of the person, actions, parts, and government of those sovereign princes to which the Lord hath made us subject, of purpose to disgrace them amongst their people, to render them odious and contemptible, and, consequently, to excite their subjects to rise up against them. Of this, it is, whereof the Lord God commanded, saying, Thou shalt not speak evil of the ruler of thy people, Exod. xxii. 28, acknowledged for a divine precept by St. Paul. Acts xxiii. 5. See, to this purpose also, that of Solomon, Prov. xxiv. 21, where it is said, It is not fit to say unto a King, Thou art wicked: And, if it be not fit to speak evil to him, assuredly it is as unfit to speak evil of him. And, finally, of this it is, that Aristotle the philosopher tells us, saying, Ὁ κατηγορέον τὸν ἄρχοντα, εἰς τὴν πόλιν ἐβρίζει. He, that speaks evil of the magistrate, offends against the commonwealth. But I must let you know, withal, that, though this of the tongue be a distinct species of rebellion, and so judged in law, yet many times this, and the other of the heart, are but the ground and preparations to the rebellion of the hand, or actual rebellion, as they call it commonly. And this appears most plainly in the story of Absalom, whose heart first swelled against his father, for being so difficult in restoring him to his court and presence, upon the murder which he had committed on his brother Amnon, 2 Sam. xiv. 24, 28. and his tongue found the way to disgrace his government, which he accused of negligence and injustice, to the common people, 2 Sam. xv. 2, 3, &c. before he blew the trumpet, and took arins against him, and made him flee with some few

servants, from the royal city, ver. 14. But here we take it not for a preparation, but for a species distinct, as before was said.

5. Q. Why do you call the swellings of the heart, and the revilings of the tongue, by the name of rebellion, considering, that the law, which punisheth rebellion with no less than death, doth take no cognisance of men's thoughts; and that when Gervase Shelvey, of Sandwich, said lately to a gentleman of that town, that, if the King came thither, he would shoot the rogue; for which, he was imprisoned by the mayor now being: It was resolved by the high court of parliament, that that these words were but a misdemeanor, and so he was released again?

A. The house of commons, which you call the high court of parliament, did not so much deliver their judgment in the case aforesaid, as betray their disaffection in it to his Majesty, whose person they endeavour to destroy, that they may keep his power still amongst themselves: Or, if they did, it was a very false and erroneous judgment, directly contrary unto the resolution of my lords the judges, and other sages of the law in all former ages, by whom it is affirmed expresly, that if any man do compass or imagine the death of our lord the King (as all rebels do) and doth declare the same imagination by any qvertfact, either deed or word, he shall suffer judgment as a traitor, Licet is id, quod in voluntate habuit, ad effectum non perduxerit, as Bracton hath it; although it do not take effect, and go no farther than the thought or purpose of the first contriver. Upon which ground it was, no question, that Shimei suffered death by the hands of Solomon. For, although David spared him upon submission, because he would not intermix the joy of his return unto Jerusalem with any sad and mournful accident (as that must needs have been unto Shimei's friends) 2 Şam. xix. 22. yet he gave order to his son, to bring his hoary head down to the grave with blood, because he had cursed him with a grievous curse, in the day when he went to Mahanaim, 1 Kings ii. S. which was accordingly performed by Solomon, ver. 46.

6. Q. But Shimei's case can be no precedent to us, who are not governed by the judicial law of Moses, but by the common law of England, and the ruled cases in that law. And, therefore, tell me, if you can, whether our own books do afford you any of the like examples?

A. Our own books do afford us many; as viz. in the case of Walker, a citizen of London, and that of Mr. Burdet, an esquire of Warwickshire, both executed in the time of King Edward the Fourth, for words which might be construed to a treasonable and rebellious sense, though, perhaps, no ill meaning was intended: That of the Windsor butcher, in the reign of King Henry the Eighth, for saying, that, rather than sell his meat at so mean a rate, he would send it to the rebels in the north; and, finally, of one Oldnoll," one of the yeomen of the guard in Queen Mary's time, who had judgment of death for certain traiterous and seditious words spoken against her Majesty, although no insurrection or rebellion did ensue upon them. For the particulars, I must refer you to our law books, and the common chronicles.

7. Q. Proceed we now unto your third and last sort of rebellion, and tell me what you mean by the rebellion of the hand, and how many

sorts there are of it?

A. The rebellion of the hand is of two sorts, whereof the first is the composing and dispersing of false and scandalous books and pamphlets, tending to the dishonour of the King, his subordinate officers, and form of government, of purpose to alienate the affections of his subjects from him, and make them the more apt to rebel against him. And this is punishable with death also, by the law of England, as may appear by the examples of Bugnall, Scot, Heath, and Kennington, being sanctuary-men in St. Martin's le Grand, London, who had judgment to be hanged, drawn, and quartered, in the time of King Henry the Seventh, for setting up seditious bills, to the scandal of the King, and some of his council: Of Penry, Udall, Barrow, Greenwood, Studley, Billott, and Bowdler, zealous puritans all, all of which were condemned, and three of them hanged in Queen Elisabeth's time, for writing treasonable and seditious books, by which the peace of the kingdom might have been disturbed, though no rebellion followed on them: Of Copping and Thacker, who were hanged at St. Edmundsbury, in the said Queen's time, for publishing the pamphlets wrote by Robert Browne, against the book of common-prayer; which Compton thus reports in his lawyers French, Deux executez pour poublier les livres de Robert Browne, encontre le livre de common praut. And, finally, witness the example of Mr. Williams, a barrister of the Middle Temple, who was executed in King James's reign, for writing a defamatory book, against the said King, and his posterity.

8. Q. What is the other sort of that rebellion, which you call the rebellion of the hand.

A. The other sort of the rebellion of the hand is that which commonly is called 'actual rebellion,' and is defined by the statute of the 25th of King Edward the Third, to be a levying of war against our sovereign lord the King, in his realm, or an adhering to the King's enemies in his realm, giving to them aid and comfort in the realm, or elsewhere. And so it is determined also in the civil laws, by which all those, qui arripiunt arma contra eum cujus jurisdictioni subditi sunt, who take up arms against such persons to whose authority they are subject, are declared to be rebels. Where note, that not the open act only, but the attempt and machination is brought within the compass of rebellion. Rebellio ipse actus rebellandi est, qui non solùm facto sed machinatione committitur, as those lawyers tell us. And it is worth our observation, that not only the bearing arms against the King is declared to be rebellion by the law of England, but that it was declared to be rebellion by the chief judges of this kingdom, at the arraignment of the Earl of Essex (the father of him, who now is in the head of this rebellion) for any man to seek to make himself so strong, that the King should not be able to resist him, although he broke not out into open act.

9. Q. What is the end that rebels do propose unto themselves, when they put themselves into rebellion ?

A. The deposition and destruction of the King in possession, and an alteration of the present government. And so it was determined, by

the joint consent of all the judges, at the arraignment of the Earl of Essex, abovementioned, by whom it was resolved, for law, that, in every rebellion, there was a plot upon the life and deposition of the prince; it being not to be conceived, that the rebels would suffer him to live or reign, who might have opportunity, in the change of things, to punish them for their rebellions, and avenge himself upon them for their treasons. And this they did confirm by the civil laws, and further justify and confirm by the strength of reason, with which it seemed inconsistent, Ut qui semel Regi jus dixerit, that he, who had once over-ruled his King by force of arms, should either suffer him to live, or recover the possession of his realm again. All which they made good, by the sad examples of King Edward the Second, and King Richard the Second, who did not long enjoy either life or crown, after they came into the hands of those who rebelled against them.

10. Q. But those examples, which you speak of, were in times of popery: Have you the like to shew since the reformation?

A. I would to God we had none such, but we have too many. For, not to look into our neighbouring realm of Scotland, and the proceedings of some there, who called themselves protestants, against their queen; the rebellion plotted by the Earl of Essex in Queen Elisabeth's time, though there was nothing less pretended, was to have ended in the death of the queen, and the alteration of the government. For, as was afterwards confessed by some of his accomplices, the secret part of the design was, to have seized upon the queen, and secured his adversaries in the court; whom, when he had condemned and executed, Parliamento indicto reipub. formam immutare statuit; He then resolved to call a parliament, and settle a new form of government. Which, how it could be done, and the queen alive, I believe you know not. And so much was acknowledged by the Earl himself, after the sentence of death was passed upon him, when he affirmed to certain of her Majesty's council, Reginam sospitem esse non posse, si ipse supersit, that, whilst he lived, it was not possible for the queen to continue in safety. Thus have you seen the main design of that rebellion, as of all others whatsoever; what his pretences were which he cast abroad, the better to seduce the people, I shall not stick to tell you, if you put me to it.

11. Q. I shall not trouble you with this at this present time. But, since you say, that levying of war against the King is properly and truly to be called rebellion, I would fain ask, whether you mean it only in such cases where the subjects take up arms out of pride and wantonness, or in such also when they are necessitated and forced unto it in their own defence?

A. I mean it equally in both cases, though, of the two, the former be more odious in the sight both of God and man. For even defensive arms, as your party calls them, are absolutely unlawful in the subject against his sovereign; in regard, that no defensive war can be undertaken, but it carrieth a resistance in it to those higher powers, to which every soul is to be subject: Which powers being obtained by Almighty God. it followeth, by the Apostle's logick, who was a very able disputant, that they, who do resist the powers, resist the ordinance of God, and, consequently, shall receive to themselves damnation. A